Development and validation of qualitative and quantitative models to predict invasiveness of lung adenocarcinomas manifesting as pure ground-glass nodules based on low-dose computed tomography during lung cancer screening.
Pure ground-glass nodule (pGGN)
low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)
lung adenocarcinoma
lung cancer screening
Journal
Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery
ISSN: 2223-4292
Titre abrégé: Quant Imaging Med Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101577942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
received:
11
09
2021
accepted:
03
02
2022
entrez:
3
5
2022
pubmed:
4
5
2022
medline:
4
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Due to different management strategy and prognosis of different subtypes of lung adenocarcinomas appearing as pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs), it is important to differentiate invasive adenocarcinoma (IA) from adenocarcinoma in situ/minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (AIS/MIA) during lung cancer screening. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the qualitative and quantitative models to predict the invasiveness of lung adenocarcinoma appearing as pGGNs based on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and compare their diagnostic performance with that of intraoperative frozen section (FS). A total of 223 consecutive pathologically confirmed pGGNs from March 2018 to December 2020 were divided into a primary cohort (96 IAs and 64 AIS/MIAs) and validation cohort (39 IAs and 24 AIS/MIAs) according to scans (Brilliance iCT and Somatom Definition Flash) performed at Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute. The following LDCT features of pGGNs were analyzed: the qualitative features included nodule location, shape, margin, nodule-lung interface, lobulation, spiculation, pleural indentation, air bronchogram, vacuole, and vessel type, and the quantitative features included the diameter, volume, and mean attenuation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to build a qualitative model, quantitative model, and combined qualitative and quantitative model. The diagnostic performance was assessed according to the following factors: the area under curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. The AUCs of the qualitative model, quantitative model, combined qualitative and quantitative model, and the FS diagnosis were 0.854, 0.803, 0.873, and 0.870, respectively, in the primary cohort and 0.884, 0.855, 0.875, and 0.946, respectively, in the validation cohort. No significant difference of the AUCs was found among the radiological models and the FS diagnosis in the primary or validation cohort (all corrected P>0.05). Among the radiological models, the combined qualitative and quantitative model consisting of vessel type and volume showed the highest accuracy in both the primary and validation cohorts (0.831 and 0.889, respectively). The diagnostic performances of the qualitative and quantitative models based on LDCT to differentiate IA from AIS/MIA in pGGNs are equivalent to that of intraoperative FS diagnosis. The vessel type and volume can be preoperative and non-invasive biomarkers to assess the invasive risk of pGGNs in lung cancer screening.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Due to different management strategy and prognosis of different subtypes of lung adenocarcinomas appearing as pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs), it is important to differentiate invasive adenocarcinoma (IA) from adenocarcinoma in situ/minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (AIS/MIA) during lung cancer screening. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the qualitative and quantitative models to predict the invasiveness of lung adenocarcinoma appearing as pGGNs based on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and compare their diagnostic performance with that of intraoperative frozen section (FS).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A total of 223 consecutive pathologically confirmed pGGNs from March 2018 to December 2020 were divided into a primary cohort (96 IAs and 64 AIS/MIAs) and validation cohort (39 IAs and 24 AIS/MIAs) according to scans (Brilliance iCT and Somatom Definition Flash) performed at Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute. The following LDCT features of pGGNs were analyzed: the qualitative features included nodule location, shape, margin, nodule-lung interface, lobulation, spiculation, pleural indentation, air bronchogram, vacuole, and vessel type, and the quantitative features included the diameter, volume, and mean attenuation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to build a qualitative model, quantitative model, and combined qualitative and quantitative model. The diagnostic performance was assessed according to the following factors: the area under curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The AUCs of the qualitative model, quantitative model, combined qualitative and quantitative model, and the FS diagnosis were 0.854, 0.803, 0.873, and 0.870, respectively, in the primary cohort and 0.884, 0.855, 0.875, and 0.946, respectively, in the validation cohort. No significant difference of the AUCs was found among the radiological models and the FS diagnosis in the primary or validation cohort (all corrected P>0.05). Among the radiological models, the combined qualitative and quantitative model consisting of vessel type and volume showed the highest accuracy in both the primary and validation cohorts (0.831 and 0.889, respectively).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The diagnostic performances of the qualitative and quantitative models based on LDCT to differentiate IA from AIS/MIA in pGGNs are equivalent to that of intraoperative FS diagnosis. The vessel type and volume can be preoperative and non-invasive biomarkers to assess the invasive risk of pGGNs in lung cancer screening.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35502397
doi: 10.21037/qims-21-912
pii: qims-12-05-2917
pmc: PMC9014141
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2917-2931Informations de copyright
2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-21-912/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Thorac Oncol. 2021 Aug;16(8):1312-1320
pubmed: 33915249
Chest. 2013 Oct;144(4):1291-1299
pubmed: 23722583
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021 Jan;11(1):204-214
pubmed: 33392022
Ann Thorac Surg. 2002 Feb;73(2):386-92; discussion 392-3
pubmed: 11845847
Jpn J Radiol. 2012 Apr;30(3):206-17
pubmed: 22187390
Lung Cancer. 2014 Jun;84(3):242-7
pubmed: 24681281
Cancer. 1995 Jun 15;75(12):2844-52
pubmed: 7773933
Clin Radiol. 2018 May;73(5):504.e1-504.e7
pubmed: 29397913
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Aug;215(2):351-358
pubmed: 32348187
Eur Radiol. 2013 Dec;23(12):3271-7
pubmed: 23832317
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Dec;14(12):2133-2142
pubmed: 31437531
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409
pubmed: 21714641
PLoS One. 2014 May 20;9(5):e97867
pubmed: 24846292
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Apr;6(4):751-6
pubmed: 21325976
Cell. 2011 Mar 4;144(5):646-74
pubmed: 21376230
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Sep;6(9):1496-504
pubmed: 21642859
Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 10;9(1):14586
pubmed: 31601919
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Sep;160(3):824-831.e4
pubmed: 31987625
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 1;34(4):307-13
pubmed: 26598742
Lancet Oncol. 2016 May;17(5):590-9
pubmed: 27009070
J Thorac Dis. 2016 Jul;8(7):1561-70
pubmed: 27499944
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2019 Nov/Dec;43(6):926-930
pubmed: 31453975
Eur Radiol. 2015 Sep;25(9):2532-40
pubmed: 25725775
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021 Sep;11(9):4042-4055
pubmed: 34476188
J Thorac Oncol. 2013 May;8(5):612-8
pubmed: 23584293
Invest Radiol. 2015 Nov;50(11):798-804
pubmed: 26146871
Histopathology. 2015 Jun;66(7):922-38
pubmed: 24889415
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2015 Oct;4(5):656-9
pubmed: 26629441
Nature. 2011 May 19;473(7347):298-307
pubmed: 21593862
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):503-513
pubmed: 31995683
Oncology (Williston Park). 2016 Mar;30(3):266-74
pubmed: 26984222
Mod Pathol. 2011 May;24(5):653-64
pubmed: 21252858
Radiology. 2015 Nov;277(2):555-64
pubmed: 26101879
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):W1-73
pubmed: 25560730
Radiology. 2013 Jul;268(1):265-73
pubmed: 23468575
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018 Jun;8(5):480-490
pubmed: 30050782
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021 Mar;18(3):135-151
pubmed: 33046839
Radiology. 2017 Jul;284(1):228-243
pubmed: 28240562
Br J Radiol. 2019 Feb;92(1094):20180204
pubmed: 30260240
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 5;369(10):920-31
pubmed: 24004119
Radiology. 2015 Sep;276(3):873-82
pubmed: 25906182
Mod Pathol. 2018 Sep;31(9):1391-1399
pubmed: 29752477
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jan;26(1):156-161
pubmed: 25361983
J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Sep;8(9):1196-202
pubmed: 23945388
Chest. 2018 Apr;153(4):954-985
pubmed: 29374513
Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2010 Mar;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 20108111
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Feb;6(2):244-85
pubmed: 21252716
Radiology. 2017 Sep;284(3):630-644
pubmed: 28825886
Radiology. 2016 Apr;279(1):185-94
pubmed: 26624973
Br J Radiol. 2015 Sep;88(1053):20140811
pubmed: 26090823
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009 Jan-Feb;33(1):42-8
pubmed: 19188783
Clin Lung Cancer. 2018 Jan;19(1):e75-e83
pubmed: 28822623
Chin J Cancer. 2017 Jul 14;36(1):57
pubmed: 28709441
Chest. 2016 Oct;150(4):877-893
pubmed: 26923625
Chest. 2013 Jan;143(1):172-178
pubmed: 22797081
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Jan;163(1):289-301.e2
pubmed: 33487427
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Sep;10(9):1243-1260
pubmed: 26291008